spowell71@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hmm, the old Sql versus Oracle debate. This has been at tac-tic-toe
> like debating stalemate for years. Performance, Reliability,
> Availability, and Security can be debate from differing angles and
> points of view; at the end each side claims victory. The problem is,
> its hard to get and apple-to-apple comparison due to wide variety in
> hardware (this may impact performance more than the RDMS platform), OS
> platforms, and incomparable features between the RDMS. At the end,
> there may be no clear winner due to the blurring of the issues with
> multitudes of academic caveats and nuances.
>
> >From my experience, sizing a Sql Server system for 200 users and
> database size not to exceed 300Gb is easily achievable. Also, I think
> you mentioned that your current system is on the Sql platform, so a
> migration to Sql 2005 would be direct & straight forward, quick, and
> low risk. Most organizations would have a hard-time justifying the $$
> to change technology in mid-stream unless there is a real bias for the
> UNIX-Oracle combo or the current solution is not working.
>
> If I were you I would focus one SQL Server 2005 clearest advantages
> over Oracle, i.e. its cost, this can have a whiplash-head turning
> affect on management. There are many white papers out there on SQL
> Server's TCO and ROI.
>
> Here are a few did you knows:
> MS SQL's licensing is by the processor (not the core) were
> Oracle's is by the core. So for a 4 processor quad-core, for SQL you
> would need a 4 processor license but for Oracle you would need a 16
> processor license.
>
> You mentioned Availability, so I assume your looking into HA (high
> availability).
>
> With SQL Standard you get most of the full HA feature set (mirroring
> without auto failover and 2-node MSCS clustering). Although Oracle has
> the DataGuard (similar to ms mirroring) and Fail Safe (only on windows
> and uses MSCS), their HA flagship is the Oracle 10G RAC (it also has
> horizontal scale out functionality). The 10G RAC is only available on
> the Enterprise version and there is an ~ 50% additional cost for
> licensing the RAC feature. Also, the RAC is so difficult to setup and
> admin, the majority of the Oracle DBA population can't support the
> feature. MS Sql does not charge for additional licenses for the
> passive/standby nodes were Oracle does.
>
> If you want to read a really good and spirited debate on the cost
> advantages between Sql and Oracle check-out Tony Rogerson's taking on
> of the Oracle user group (Google search: "Tony Rogerson" "Oracle
> licence question"). I think he is quite effective and makes many
> excellent points; I find the thread assuming and very entertaining:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_frm/thread/e272c9314c2f0e22/643046c269325a85?lnk=st&q=%22Tony+Rogerson%22+%22Oracle+licence+question%22&rnum=1&hl=en#643046c269325a85
>
> Mike C# wrote:
> > Sounds like the customer wants what the customer wants... Although SQL
> > Server could probably easily handle the requirements you gave, instead of
> > trying to convert them to something they've said they don't want, maybe you
> > could use this as an opportunity to create an Oracle version of your app and
> > expand your client base. If they're willing to "underwrite" the conversion
> > of your app, why not...? They may have other considerations besides your
> > particular application which makes them want to use Oracle instead of SQL
> > Server as well.
> >
> > "jcvoon" <jiangchnan.voon@maximas.com> wrote in message
> > news:1166842183.224352.267630@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > > Our application is design for SQL server, and it is already exists for
> > > more than 8 years, it is so complicated and consist of so many modules,
> > > so it is a bit risky for us to convert it to Oracle. Since our customer
> > > size is not so big (about 200 users and the estimate database size will
> > > not exceed 300Gb) SQL server should fit their need. Unfortunately they
> > > insist to use Oracle and our skill set is on SQL server so i need an
> > > advice to convince them to use SQL server.
> > >
> > > I'm not familiar with Oracle, the only thing I know that SQL server is
> > > better than Oracle are:
> > > - Easy to install
> > > - Easy to administrate
> > > - Easy to maintain
> > > - Good UI
> > > - Auto tuning
> > > - Come with a lot of extra tools like SSIS, SSAS, SSRS
> > >
> > > But in terms of Performance, Reliability, Availability, Security how
> > > good is SQL server compare with Oracle ?
> > >
> > > Please advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > JCVoon
> > >